An editorial in yesterday’s Boston Globe raises a key question about NASA and the projects it should undertake. The editorial, based on an article that appeared in the Globe last Friday, argues that NASA should be spending more, not less, on Earth sciences programs:
Trips to the moon or Mars, which the president also favors, fit the better-known part of NASA’s mission to explore space. But at a time when climate change, in particular, is threatening the well-being of the planet, NASA should be increasing, not decreasing, funding for projects like the canceled satellite mission to measure global soil moisture. A climate observatory in deep space, which would monitor this planet’s solar radiation, ozone, clouds, and water vapor, has also been dropped.
If you read the editorial and article, you might think that NASA was abandoning Earth sciences research. While there are some notable delays and cancellations, there are several missions still in active development in the near term alone, including AIM, Aquarius, and OCO, not to mention the fleet of Earth-observing spacecraft already in orbit. The overall “Earth-Sun System” theme at NASA, which includes both Earth observing and solar science projects, will get $2.2 billion in the proposed FY07 budget, slowly rising to $2.4 billion by FY11.
On the other hand, the “climate observatory in deep space” mentioned in the editorial (officially known as the Deep Space Climate Observatory, and previously—and better—known as Triana) has had a long and controversial history. And the “canceled satellite mission to measure global soil moisture”? That is apparently a reference to Hydros; however, oddly, neither the editorial nor the original article mention the spacecraft by name. Moreover, neither mention that Hydros was selected as a “backup” mission in the event either Aquarius or OCO ran into problems, and thus “was not confirmed for development” when the other two missions passed their confirmation reviews (although there was apparently some confusion about this between the project team and NASA headquarters.)
Thus the question: how much money should NASA be spending on Earth sciences research? Yes, it is important research—few would deny that—but how much of that should the space agency should be supporting, versus other agencies? Some have advocated in the past removing Earth sciences entirely from NASA, seeing such research as a distraction to its renewed focus on human and robotic space exploration, but that seems unlikely, in part because it’s not at all clear who should take up the burden, or would even be qualified to do so. What is clear is this: despite modest budget increases, NASA’s budget pie is not growing large enough to match the voracious appetites of everyone who wants a slice.
Just a note that while the budget has a line for the “Earth-Sun system” as Jeff says, SMD has re-re-reorganized, and divided the two disciplines again (Earth science and Heliophysics).
Very good point “NASA’s budget pie is not growing large enough to match the voracious appetites of everyone who wants a slice.”
During the Apollo-era NASA, earth observation was only a fond dream. Now, it consumes 1/8 of the NASA budget and is a cornerstone of climate and environmental research here at home. That expanding slice of the pie has come while overall NASA budgets have remained flat (inflation adjusted).
I fall into the camp that would like to see Earth sciences separated from NASA primarily because their mission is constantly expanding, and thus their budgetary needs. I think that the NOAA could take ownership of NASA’s fleet, though the operational mindset at the NOAA is probably very different than NASA. But NASA shouldn’t be in the operations business anyway; their mission should be development and exploration.
I’m in agreement on the transfer of assets that study the atmosphere and oceans should be transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I think that Land satellite studies should be transferred to the USGS. By doing so we broaden the depth of our space capabilities, and also offer new opportunities for new ideas on how to approach this whole space business.
I also agree that NASA shouldn’t be in the operations business, but rather conducting R&D in parallel and supplemental to private industry, to help give our economy the extra edge in rocketry.
I also think that NASA should be working with our global neighbors on universal interfaces for things like docking spacecraft (i.e. a specific frequency will be used to gauge distance, a specific frequency or set of frequencies will be used to communicate between the dockor and the dockee, &c.) and measurements for the airlock interfaces, as well as standards for the electrical interfaces. NASA should also be encouraging the switch to metric so that at least in space we can join the rest of the world. (I don’t know, something about retooling costs being an issue)
NASA needs to have some trade shows and dump their technology on American industry, give the S&P and Wilshire companies something in which to invest their cash.
NASA needs to argue off the direct study of Earth and place that burden elsewhere within the American government, and to some extent with academia and commercial interests, so that they can focus on space threats to American interests and assets, from Solar flares to errant asteroids and comets.
NASA needs to back off a bit from the furthest regions of space and share that burden more with academia, where that search more properly lies. Instead they need to focus more on characterizing our immediate, local, regional, and Solar neighborhoods.
NASA does not need to be operating its own sole-user launch system. They need to partner with American industry to figure out the best way to get both private AND government interests into space at a cost that’s reasonable for everyone.
So to the question of ‘how much money should NASA be spending on Earth sciences research?’ I would argue that in direct studies of the Earth they shouldn’t be spending much of anything except for stuff like gravitational characterization (i.e. J2 effect) of interest to orbiting spacecraft.
Indirectly, in the study of the Earth in its space environment, I think they need to be spending a whole lot more. I think we need a replacement for SOHO, a better TDRS set-up, a better and more diversified DSN, better characterization of the magnetosphere, the Moon’s passage therethrough, the debris cluttering and cocooning us, cis-Terran asteroid objects, the Moon’s resources, Ceres’ weak stability gravity boundaries with respect to Mars, the perturbation of Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud objects, and a million other things.
If NASA keeps itself ball & chained directly to space-based Earth studies then it will be stuck in LEO for a long, long time. It’s time to let the baby grow up and find someone new to take care of it, like Mr. NOAA or Ms. USGS. NASA has new responsibilities it needs to get focused on.
I find the lack of response on this article and the accompanying editorial troubling.
This is the first salvo of a fight that begins about every other decade.
In 1971 it was the environment.
In 1981 it was space exploration via the shuttle.
In 1989-92 it was the Space Exploration Initiative
From 93 to 2003 it was the “Mission to Planet Earth”
Now it is the Vision for Space Exploration.
However, that vision has not been laid out well by NASA. Mike Griffin thinks that it is his job to make sure that the CEV gets built and he is right. However, he is ignoring the larger context of space exploration just as NASA did in the euphoria of the Moon landings.
Many in the new space community think that NASA is irrelevant but a change in direction regarding space exploration in 2008 is likely to hurt the new space movement much more than help it.
Dennis
It’s not just these 2 missions that are the cause of all of these newspaper articles and editorials. You need to look at all of the rounds of cancellations or Earth observing missions starting at whatever time you are discussing (eg: since the VSE announcement, since the new NASA administrator started, since the shuttle Columbia disaster). If you’re interested in all of the robotic missions, then include the cancelled astronomy missions, technology missions, planetary missions and so on. Then look at cancelled new starts, delays, and mission scale-backs. Also look at cutbacks in research, ground support, and so on. If you’re interested in science in general, include the ISS science cutbacks. If you’re interested in aeronautics, include that. Of course, given the trends and past experience, you might try to predict the severity of future cuts. This article may have been more focused on certain missions because of local interest, but the broader issue requires a broader accounting of the changes in plans. Then of course you need to compare the impacts of the changes to whatever the benefits are (ie whatever the money is going to). Do the new priorities make sense?
As far as moving Earth science out of NASA, some of the more operational Earth science is already done in some other agencies. There is a fuzzy line between a research mission and an operational one – both in the spacecraft itself (components can be new) and in the use of the mission data. If the Earth Observation research mission were moved, would we expect the mission to be run better? NPOESS is having a lot of trouble. Also, what would the cost be to make the transition? Would the funding be transferred, too? It seems that the NASA Earth Observation missions have been reasonably well-run compared to other programs such as the NASA human spaceflight missions and many of the other robotic programs at verious agencies. It might make more sense to move the human spaceflight and rocket design/operation areas out of NASA, since NASA has had a lot of trouble in these areas. For example, the DOD might be a good home for it, and may force a more no-nonsense approach.
If I shuffled anything around, I wouldn’t do it all at once, either. For the Earth observation move, I might try moving one spacecraft mission to the new home, and see how that goes before taking the next step. For moving the human spaceflight mission, I might start with a smaller, independent assignment (suborbital or whatever), and see how the new agency does with that.
I agree with the folks above who advocate moving operational missions out of NASA. Weather reporting from space should be funded by those who do weather reporting, who can then prioritize between the various technologies. In the medium-term, this should probably include the Space Station, once it is fully operational.
Ken: I also think that NASA should be working with our global neighbors on universal interfaces for things like docking spacecraft (i.e. a specific frequency will be used to gauge distance, a specific frequency or set of frequencies will be used to communicate between the dockor and the dockee, &c.) and measurements for the airlock interfaces, as well as standards for the electrical interfaces.
While I agree, we already have this, remember Apollo-Soyuz? For whatever reasons, NASA has chosen to abandon this already-existing international standard. While it is not an issue I’ve thought a lot about, my first thought is that NASA is making a mistake.
— Donald
While I agree, we already have this, remember Apollo-Soyuz? For whatever reasons, NASA has chosen to abandon this already-existing international standard.
The reason is not obscure: the Russians abandoned it first. The Russians replaced the Apollo-Soyuz interface (APAS-75) with APAS-89 for Buran-Mir. NASA immediately adopted APAS-89 as its standard at the start of Shuttle-Mir and for ISS. Early ISS drawings showed APAS-89 throughout, including the Russian segment. Then the Russians abandoned APAS-89 and reverted to probe & drogue, and that’s what’s currently in use on the Russian segment.
At this point, APAS-89 is pretty much an orphan product. NASA originally planned to replace it with LIDS for CEV (including retrofitting the ISS pressurized mating adapters), but it appears now that APAS-89 will still be used for the Block I “ISS CEV” and LIDS will be deferred until the lunar version.
Thanks, Nemo. — Donald